Dust to Dust, or Dust to Life?

first_imgNational Geographic gave prominent press to last month’s theory of living dust (see 08/10/2007, bullet 1).  Criticisms were mild; scientists were quoted who thought this claim raises interesting questions about the definition of life.  Tsytovich’s ideas were described by Mihaly Horanyi (U of Colorado) as “amazing.”  He said, “This is a very original, very intelligent paper that will trigger a lot of debate.”The article has the three typical hallmarks of evolutionary storytelling (see 12/22/2003):1.  We don’t understand what we are looking at.2.  It must have something to do with evolution.3.  It therefore opens up our imaginations for more storytelling.You know that Darwinism is on its last legs when stories this stupid get good press.  No religious myth could be sillier.  They may as well claim a Lava Lamp is alive (09/07/2003).  This is the quality of science news you get from reporters raised on Star Trek.  Where is The Amazing Randi now?  His crusade against pseudoscience knows no bounds when the subject is tainted by religious faith, but when the Darwinists trot out their incredibly dumb and unsubstantiated stories, he takes on the 3-monkey lotus position (02/20/2007).  Then you catch him over there shmoozing with the culprits and telling them how wise and clever they are (02/20/2007).    The new Darwin Party strategy seems to be to make evolutionary claims dumber and dumber, so that National Gee–a Gaffe [hic] and the other evo-hacks can claim, after the Darwin idol falls, “It should have been obvious we were only kidding.  The joke is on you for taking us seriously.”(Visited 9 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *